What really pisses me off is that the repubs will have squeezed as much cuts to programs that effect the poor as they possibly can in return for Obama not extending the tax cuts for the richest 2% of Americans. And the repubs have probably whittled down anything they could that will have effected that richest 2%.

"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.

Before anyone starts whining or jumping for joy, it's important to get the details.

One detail in particular is how the deficit reduction is loaded across those 10 years...because here's the thing...current Congresses (and Presidents) cannot really commit future Congresses and Presidents to anything. All they can do is stack the deck to make things politically easier or harder to do. Future budgets will be written and passed by future Congresses.

Why is this important?

It's important because if someone announces a $3T (over 10 years) deficit reduction plan but $2.5T of it come in years 5-10 (i.e., it is back loaded) then they haven't really done anything more than symbolic from the current time point of view. Those future budgets (and deficit reductions) are absolutely not guaranteed.

Another detail that's important to know is if the plan involves any real or actual spending reductions. Don't assume it does despite what is said. Why? Because, to a politician, a spending cut is not always the same thing as it is to you and me. In political-speak a decrease in the rate of increase is often a "spending cut" or spending less than was proposed is a "spending cut".

Think of it like this. Let's say that I have spent the following amounts on dining out over these years:

2009 $3,000
2010 $3,500
2011 $4,000

And my wife begin negotiating our 2012 budget.

I propose $4,200.

She proposes $4,500.

We compromise at $4,300.

If we were both politicians, she would accuse me of cutting spending in my proposal (rate of increase is less than previous years). We might both also claim that our compromise was a spending cut (less than the higher proposed amount.)

However, if we were both human beings, we would not look at an increase from $4,000 to $4,300 as a spending cut.

This happens all the time in government budgeting. And, frankly, I don't know if I trust the Republicans to actually cut any spending here. I think there's an awful lot of posturing and propagandizing going on from both parties.

The whole thing is a joke. Only drastic cuts to government spending paired with similarly drastic reductions in taxes across the board - along with a return to commodity based currency (read: abolition of the Federal Reserve) - will effectively and permanently turn the economy around.

Before anyone starts whining or jumping for joy, it's important to get the details.

One detail in particular is how the deficit reduction is loaded across those 10 years...because here's the thing...current Congresses (and Presidents) cannot really commit future Congresses and Presidents to anything. All they can do is stack the deck to make things politically easier or harder to do. Future budgets will be written and passed by future Congresses.

Why is this important?

It's important because if someone announces a $3T (over 10 years) deficit reduction plan but $2.5T of it come in years 5-10 (i.e., it is back loaded) then they haven't really done anything more than symbolic from the current time point of view. Those future budgets (and deficit reductions) are absolutely not guaranteed.

Another detail that's important to know is if the plan involves any real or actual spending reductions. Don't assume it does despite what is said. Why? Because, to a politician, a spending cut is not always the same thing as it is to you and me. In political-speak a decrease in the rate of increase is often a "spending cut" or spending less than was proposed is a "spending cut".

Think of it like this. Let's say that I have spent the following amounts on dining out over these years:

2009 $3,000
2010 $3,500
2011 $4,000

And my wife begin negotiating our 2012 budget.

I propose $4,200.

She proposes $4,500.

We compromise at $4,300.

If we were both politicians, she would accuse me of cutting spending in my proposal (rate of increase is less than previous years). We might both also claim that our compromise was a spending cut (less than the higher proposed amount.)

However, if we were both human beings, we would not look at an increase from $4,000 to $4,300 as a spending cut.

This happens all the time in government budgeting. And, frankly, I don't know if I trust the Republicans to actually cut any spending here. I think there's an awful lot of posturing and propagandizing going on from both parties.

I would think that those exagerated claims of spending cuts come more often from dems than repubs, though it's a historical fact that repubs have increased spending in their budgets far more than dems.

Even though the Ryan plan was brutal, the amount of tax cuts meant the debt was barely at all decreased. You and jazz except for the military spending may find that it appeals to you. Would either of you vote repub to further your goals or is that out of bounds?

"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.

I'd like to hear, just off the top of the heads of people on both sides (why we HAVE sides to this is beyond me...) what you believe is the probability of us not coming to an agreement in time.

I mean, we all know the implications of a default, but how likely is it that something doesn't happen in time?

First, I'd say pretty unlikely. I think this is more political show than anything else.

Second, a huge part of of this posturing is the fear-mongering about a default being perpetrated by the President, his party and the media (the distinction between these last two is unclear). A default is possible but certainly not necessary. The project revenue to the federal government is around $2.2T. This amount is more than enough to pay the $200B - $300B a year in bond interest and the remaining $1.9T - $2T is plenty to cover plenty of government operations. Additionally, the Treasury Secretary can prioritize expenditures to avoid default.

The reason Obama and the Democrats are scared of this alleged "default" event is that it would back them into a corner and force them to make perfectly clear what the spending priorities of the government should be (or at least what their spending priorities are)...and I think it's safe to say we'll all see that they aren't what they have been telling us. They would much rather keep telling everyone they can have their cake and eat to until Obama gets re-elected and possibly through his 2nd term...kicking the can further down the road...hopefully to a point of collapse during a future administration.

I would think that those exagerated claims of spending cuts come more often from dems than repubs, though it's a historical fact that repubs have increased spending in their budgets far more than dems.

This so-called "fact" is dubious. The data paints a murkier picture than you claim it does.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon

Even though the Ryan plan was brutal, the amount of tax cuts meant the debt was barely at all decreased.

Let's be clear here. I doubt there is any plan right now that amounts to reducing the debt one red cent. All they're talking about is reducing the deficit (i.e., the rate if debt increase.) In order to reduce the debt at all they'd need to go into surplus and begin using that surplus to payoff bonds.

I'd like to hear, just off the top of the heads of people on both sides (why we HAVE sides to this is beyond me...) what you believe is the probability of us not coming to an agreement in time.

I mean, we all know the implications of a default, but how likely is it that something doesn't happen in time?

Who knows?

My guess is that it's damaging to both sides equally whatever happens. A default will effect the middle and lower income levels the most, so the Repubs will be less concerned than the dems. Anyone who says otherwise is living in a dream world the way things are with repubs.

If Obama caves on the tax cuts for the richest 2%, he's toast. Someone else will have to run for the dems.

Maybe he won't. If he doesn't the repubs I think are more likely than not to stick to their guns, and hence, no deal. Maybe something temporary, but that looks very unlikely.

"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.

I would think that those exagerated claims of spending cuts come more often from dems than repubs, though it's a historical fact that repubs have increased spending in their budgets far more than dems.

Even though the Ryan plan was brutal, the amount of tax cuts meant the debt was barely at all decreased. You and jazz except for the military spending may find that it appeals to you. Would either of you vote repub to further your goals or is that out of bounds?

I vote for principle, not party.

I have said many times that the only Republican presidential candidates I would vote (as of today) are Ron Paul or Gary Johnson, both of whom have made their positions very clear on government spending and taxation. If neither of them secure the nomination, I will be voting for a third party candidate.

This so-called "fact" is dubious. The data paints a murkier picture than you claim it does.

Let's be clear here. I doubt there is any plan right now that amounts to reducing the debt one red cent. All they're talking about is reducing the deficit (i.e., the rate if debt increase.) In order to reduce the debt at all they'd need to go into surplus and begin using that surplus to payoff bonds.

Well sure I could have used the words "deficit" too and in many ways it would have been more appropriate. But often both are discussed, as its been with the Ryan plan.

I have said many times that the only Republican presidential candidates I would vote (as of today) are Ron Paul or Gary Johnson, both of whom have made their positions very clear on government spending and taxation. If neither of them secure the nomination, I will be voting for a third party candidate.

I think Ron Pauls got a very good chance if Perry doesn't run. Apparently Perry would be very popular.

"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.

What do you make of the additional $60 trillion debt? And that's from the extreme cutting end of the repubs.

Now you're starting to get it. So this allegedly extreme Republican budget cuts which, if you were to listen to Democrats, would be like going back to the dark ages of government spending still result in $60T in debt. Imagine what it looks like without the cuts!

I have said many times that the only Republican presidential candidates I would vote (as of today) are Ron Paul or Gary Johnson, both of whom have made their positions very clear on government spending and taxation. If neither of them secure the nomination, I will be voting for a third party candidate.

I just read an article to see where Ron Paul stood on Ryans plan and sure enough he doesn't like it.

The repubs here seem only too eager to support the repubs and bash Obama, particularly relating to debt and indeed only 4 repubs in congress voted against Ryans plan even though it adds at least an additional $62 trillion to the national debt by sometime around 2060.

Horrifying numbers! It can't be right that there's so much growing debt in relation to GDP.

I know Ron Paul wants to slash education, welfare etc but what about military spending, prisons, programs that benefit the better off (like that $1 million to the farm that puts on events for repubs) Why not work on those things whilst establishing alternatives for the poor rather than simply pulling the rug from beneath them before there's a good chance they'll benefit from any of the benefits you propose would come about from lowering taxes and encouraging independence?

Oh, a link to the article (mj may have been inspired by this one ) - http://caffeinatedthoughts.com/2011/...-ryans-budget/
"If each day I spend $5 on lunch, and my wife says, ‘tomorrow we should spend $10′, and I say, ‘no we should spend $8′, did I just cut our budget by $2? If you have any common sense you would say of course not! Then why is Paul Ryan’s budget considered draconian CUTS, when he plans to raise spending, but just less than Obama plans to raise spending?"

"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.

The repubs here seem only too eager to support the repubs and bash Obama, particularly relating to debt and indeed only 4 repubs in congress voted against Ryans plan even though it adds at least an additional $62 trillion to the national debt by sometime around 2060.

Horrifying numbers! It can't be right that so much growing debt in relation to GDP will occur.

So this debt number is horrifying? What adjective should we use to describe the debt without serious cuts?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon

I know Ron Paul wants to slash education, welfare etc but what about military spending, prisons, programs that benefit the better off (like that $1 million to the farm that puts on events for repubs)

I suspect Ron Paul would cut those things as well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon

Why not work in those things whilst establishing alternatives for the poor rather than simply pulling the rug from beneath them before there's a good chance they'll benefit from any of the benefits you propose would come about from lowering taxes and encouraging independence?

Why not stop assuming that cutting government spending is "pulling the rug from beneath" the poor?

Now you're starting to get it. So this allegedly extreme Republican budget cuts which, if you were to listen to Democrats, would be like going back to the dark ages of government spending still result in $60T in debt. Imagine what it looks like without the cuts!

The article claimed that if we did nothing the situation would be 7 times worse than with the Ryan plan . Eeeek!

"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.

I don't think Ron Paul intends to cut government spending by 50% his first day in office - but I do know there are several things he will do right away that will have an immediate and overall positive effect on the economy and on our freedom and wellbeing in general.

I think he's a reasonable man and understands that it would be foolish and impractical to immediately and drastically cut programs on which people have become dependent. But I'm sure he will promote policies that wean people off dependency on the state while the economy recovers and the free market creates more jobs.

I don't think Ron Paul intends to cut government spending by 50% his first day in office - but I do know there are several things he will do right away that will have an immediate and overall positive effect on the economy and on our freedom and wellbeing in general.

I think he's a reasonable man and understands that it would be foolish and impractical to immediately and drastically cut programs on which people have become dependent. But I'm sure he will promote policies that wean people off dependency on the state while the economy recovers and the free market creates more jobs.

I've heard him say that, but what are the details? has he given them?

"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.

So do you. You keep repeating this claim without any supporting evidence or reasoning.

Because if you take money away from people those same people have to fill the gap some other way. That's common sense and so you have to show that that gap not only can be filled but how it's filled. It's not convincing me certainly that reduced regulations, charity and reduced taxes will fill that void which seems to be your assumptions for the most part, albeit with a few who miss out there also.

"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.

Because if you take money away from people those same people have to fill the gap some other way.

Who says they can't or won't?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon

It's not convincing me certainly that reduced regulations, charity and reduced taxes will fill that void which seems to be your assumptions for the most part, albeit with a few who miss out there also.

So just because you're not convinced of the other possibilities, then your dystopian possibility is the only likely or even possible one?

Because if you take money away from people those same people have to fill the gap some other way. That's common sense and so you have to show that that gap not only can be filled but how it's filled. It's not convincing me certainly that reduced regulations, charity and reduced taxes will fill that void which seems to be your assumptions for the most part, albeit with a few who miss out there also.

No, it's ceasing to give people money that has been taken from other people.

More people will be able to keep more of their money and be in a better position to give to charity of their own accord.

So just because you're not convinced of the other possibilities, then your dystopian possibility is the only likely or even possible one?

That's a little extreme. I'd be confident that there would be some pretty big pluses to your limited government approach, I really don't see it as a view that's all bad. But nonetheless, there a lot of people who rely on what we currently have and whilst I think a lot of people, indeed average people would benefit I think at the other end a lot of people would find themselves in a position where they were left without the support they needed to progress or even just survive. Quite what the situation would be is of course in reality bound to reflect many factors that neither of us or anyone else could fully predict, but the lowest level income earners would certainly have the most to lose and the highest level income earners the most to gain, for the most part.

"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.

But nonetheless, there a lot of people who rely on what we currently have and whilst I think a lot of people, indeed average people would benefit I think at the other end a lot of people would find themselves in a position where they were left without the support they needed to progress or even just survive.

So it sounds like there are a lot of people who have developed a dependency on government handouts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon

Quite what the situation would be is of course in reality bound to reflect many factors that neither of us or anyone else could fully predict

Agreed, but your prediction appears to be entirely dire. In fact the way you say it, it's as if it is a forgone conclusion. I'm simply suggesting it might not be as bad as you imagine and might actually be very good in the medium to long term.

Agreed, but your prediction appears to be entirely dire. I'm suggesting it might not be as bad as you imagine and might actually be very good in the medium to long term.

I'm not being "entirely dire".

If you can somehow show me how much roughly the poorest 40% of Americans can survive with no public education, healthcare or welfare (especially single mothers) I'd be happy to try and better understand your confidence.

Can they or will they really be able to afford it? What are the sums?

"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.

If you can somehow show me how much roughly the poorest 40% of Americans can survive with no public education, healthcare or welfare (especially single mothers) I'd be happy to try and better understand your confidence.

You just moved the goalposts, at least as it pertains to this discussion. There is not a single budget proposal on the table right now that would result in "no public education, healthcare or welfare."

But that aside, you are still begging the question. You're assuming that no government education means no education, that no government healthcare means no healthcare, that no government welfare means no welfare (especially for single mothers.)

You just moved the goalposts, at least as it pertains to this discussion. There is not a single budget proposal on the table right now that would result in "no public education, healthcare or welfare."

But that aside, you are still begging the question. You're assuming that no government education means no education, that no government healthcare means no healthcare, that no government welfare means no welfare (especially for single mothers.)

I'm trying to ascertain your position and how you come to your confidence that the poor, for the most part, won't become poorer.

Again you're painting me into a corner. I've already said that there would be many who'd benefit under a system of limited government that you support, so clearly I don't expect the government to take care of everyone.

Are there numbers you have available to you or you could use, to help me better understand how people who are at the bottom of the income scale, would be able to survive and/or progress?

I'll look myself, but surely you'd know where to look for a good positive explanation that covers that area.

Edit- re-reading your post I think you misunderstood my question.

If the government funding isn't there, just how much income will the poorest, say 40% of Americans have to pay for what they still need? Do the numbers mean that they mostly can or mostly can't be independent without facing greater poverty, for example?

"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.

Again your painting me into a corner. I've already said that there would be many who'd benefit under a system of limited government that you support, so clearly I don't expect the government to take care of everyone.

I don't expect the government to take care of anyone. This isn't the responsibility of government. This is the responsibility of individuals and voluntary associations of individuals (e.g., churches, etc.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon

Are there numbers you have available to you or you could use to help me better understand how people who are at the bottom of the income scale would be able to survive and/or progress?

Why don't we start with details on how much different people rely on government handouts. Once we have that we can consider whether all of those people would simply be up a creek without a paddle or just a little worse off but still surviving and how many people would truly be in total dire straits. We can also consider what options might exist for those people if that money were to simply vanish.

But more than that, a large reduction in government spending, taxes and other meddling will result in much improved economic and employment growth both of which will help the poor and better enable them to provide for themselves rather than rely on handouts from government (or anyone else.) In fact many of the services (e.g., education and healthcare) would become much cheaper and more affordable for more people including and especially the poor.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hands Sandon

If the government funding isn't there, just how much income will the poorest, say 40% of Americans have to pay for what they still need? Do the numbers mean that they mostly can or mostly can't be independent without facing greater poverty?

That's what I'm asking you. You are the one making the claim that large cuts to government spending will gravely affect this bottom 40%. You tell me...how much money and benefits (direct and indirect) does this bottom 40% (132M people) actually get from the federal government? Better if broken down into smaller segments (e.g., 10% chunks) because certainly not everyone in that group would be shit out of luck absent government handouts.

P.S. If you want to be taken more seriously on this, you would probably be talking about the 14% (43M people) who are below the poverty line in the US. Furthermore you'd question whether or not even those people are truly at serious risk given that "poverty" as defined by the US government is not an absolute level but rather a relative (and somewhat vaguely defined) level defined as "one who lacks a usual or socially acceptable amount of money or material possessions."

I don't expect the government to take care of anyone. This isn't the responsibility of government. This is the responsibility of individuals and voluntary associations of individuals (e.g., churches, etc.)

Why don't we start with details on how much different people rely on government handouts. Once we have that we can consider whether all of those people would simply be up a creek without a paddle or just a little worse off but still surviving and how many people would truly be in total dire straits. We can also consider what options might exist for those people if that money were to simply vanish.

But more than that, a large reduction in government spending, taxes and other meddling will result in much improved economic and employment growth both of which will help the poor and better enable them to provide for themselves rather than rely on handouts from government (or anyone else.) In fact many of the services (e.g., education and healthcare) would become much cheaper and more affordable for more people including and especially the poor.

That's what I'm asking you. You are the one making the claim that large cuts to government spending will gravely affect this bottom 40%. You tell me...how much money and benefits (direct and indirect) does this bottom 40% (132M people) actually get from the federal government? Better if broken down into smaller segments (e.g., 10% chunks) because certainly not everyone in that group would be shit out of luck absent government handouts.

Would be nice to know about that 132 million and all groups for that matter. I don't, so maybe anyone who can gather how much they get from the government and how its distributed amongst them, could post any of their findings here. I'll add what I find too.

"Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"~ Sir Winston Churchill. We are nurturing a nightmare that will haunt our children, and kill theirs.

What really pisses me off is that the repubs will have squeezed as much cuts to programs that effect the poor as they possibly can in return for Obama not extending the tax cuts for the richest 2% of Americans. And the repubs have probably whittled down anything they could that will have effected that richest 2%.

You know that the Republicans never cared about the middle class or poor.Obama is a stooge in the middle of all this and will cave in soon guaranteed.